CONCORD — Seacoast area representatives are unsure of how they will vote on HB 135, despite state and national backlash. The bill would reverse some of the “stand your ground” amendments that were passed in 2011 over former Gov. Lynch’s veto.

At a public hearing on Jan. 22, the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee heard public comment on the bill for over five hours, according to Chair Laura Pantelakos, D-Portsmouth. The hearing had to be moved to Representative Hall to accommodate an overflowing crowd of more than 200 people, 70 of whom spoke.

Rep. Philip Ginsburg, D-Durham, believes the reaction is mainly from those who misunderstand the bill.

“Many people emailed to say that this bill would take away their right to self-defense,” he said. “However, it simply reinstitutes the requirement that if you’re in a public place you must retreat, if safely possible, before using deadly force.”

Currently, in N.H., people have the right to use deadly force to defend themselves or a third party from deadly force in their dwelling or “anywhere he or she has a right to be.” The latter was added in Sept. 2011 by controversial SB 88. HB 135, if passed, would reverse the statute back to the way it had been previously for over 40 years.

Rep. Roger Berube, D-Somersworth, believes that a majority of the people at the hearing were from the gun lobby, and said many had traveled far to voice their opinions.

“It’s one heck of an issue in the state and in the entire country,” Berube said.

The bill was mentioned at a Jan. 19 “Guns Across America” rally held in Concord, where Rep. Al Baldasaro, R-Londonderry, stated the bill would eliminate provisions that allow people to use deadly force when protecting their families and encouraged people to share their thoughts with the legislature, according to the Concord Patch.

Even after the public hearing, committee members are receiving a lot of reaction.

“I opened my email and had 375 new messages,” Ginsburg said. “By the time I deleted them, I had 170 more, all on this issue. It’s kind of overwhelming.”

He says very few are from this area.

“I respect their views, but they’re not my constituents,” he said.

Ginsburg has seen major state and national reaction to bills in the past, but doesn’t think he’s ever received so many emails.

However, Pantelakos, who has served as a representative for almost 35 years, does not find the response unusual.

“With any gun bill there is always outrage,” she said. “I think a lot of people are angry and think the government wants to tell them what to do.”

Pantelakos thinks HB 135 is necessary.

“There have to be laws; you don’t have a right to shoot someone,” she said.

Rep. Roger Berube of Somersworth is unsure of how he will vote on the bill, but is leaning toward supporting it.

“It’s a really tough issue and there’s going to be a lot more testimony from the executive committee,” he said Friday afternoon. “At this time, I myself haven’t fully decided since there’s a lot more to be said. I want to know what my fellow legislators think.”

HB 135 was introduced on Jan. 3 by Rep. Stephen Shurtleff, D-Penacook, and was referred to committee. After the committee discusses HB 135, it will be voted on and will pass to the floor of the N.H. House of Representatives for discussion.

Pantelakos thinks the committee will vote on the bill during the week of Feb. 4. She is unsure of how the bill will end up, though she is in support of its passage. The decision of the 11 Democrats and 9 Republicans on the committee is only a recommendation.

“It still has a long way to go,” she said.

Ginsburg said he would absolutely vote for the first part of the bill, but is uncomfortable with the other changes it would make, changes he said few people have commented on.

The bill has three parts, the first rescinding “anywhere he or she has a right to be” from the law.

The second would reverse a clause from SB 88 that defined producing or displaying a weapon as “nondeadly force.”

The third would repeal a statute giving civil immunity for the use of force under the “stand your ground” law.

Ginsburg is not in full agreement with the second and third sections. He said that in some instances, if you produce a weapon an attacker will leave, and wants that to be allowed. In addition, he believes that if someone is truly defending themselves from deadly force, they should not be vulnerable to civil lawsuits.

Pantelakos, on the other hand, supports the entire bill.

“I don’t believe in suing if someone comes into your house, but I do think innocent citizens should be able to sue,” she said.

Pantelakos said her committee handled the public hearing to the best of their ability.

“This is a democracy and these people have a right to feel the way they want to feel,” she said. “The committee is very good at sitting there and being talked down to. However, I think the respect should be there; it’s a great hall!”